Victims' Rights Working GroupPromoting the rights and interests of victims
September 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930

LEGAL UPDATE Dec 2011 - Feb 2012

 

ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update

29 November 2011 - 21 February 2012

(pdf version)

 

Note: The summaries below are unofficial summaries of ICC decisions and related pleadings relevant to victims’ rights issues. The summary does not purport to be complete. For a more in-depth review, please review the documents hyper-linked in this summary. Any comments on this Legal Update should be directed to Gaelle Carayon at gaelle@redress.org

Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Developments in the Lubanga case

  • Timeline for appeal filing, release, sentencing and reparation proceedings clarified
  • New applications for participation not to be considered until sentencing or reparation stage

Developments in the Katanga and Ngudjolo case

  • Closing statements to start on 15 May 2012
  • TC II rejects victims’ legal representative request to present additional witnesses

Developments in the Mbarushimana case

  • PTC I declines to confirm the charges against Callixte Mbarushimana and orders his release

Situation in the Central African Republic (CAR)

Developments in the Bemba case

  • Victims apply to present evidence and their views and concerns
  • Hundreds of new victims to participate in the proceedings

Situation in Sudan

  • Prosecutor presents new case in Darfur

Developments in the Banda and Jerbo case

  • OPCV lacks resources to complete all applications in time

Situation in Kenya

Developments in the Ruto, Kosgey and Sang case

  • Single Judge rejects victims’ views and concerns in relation to the conduct of investigations
  • PTC II confirms charges against against Mr Ruto and Mr Sang

Developments in the Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali case

  • PTC II confirms charges against Mr Muthuara and Mr Kenyatta
  • Victims oppose disclosure of their identities to the Defence

Situation in Libya

  • Framework decision on victim participation in situation/investigation phase

Developments in the Gaddafi and Al-Senussi case

  • Libya submits confidential observation in relation to the arrest of Saif Gaddafi

Situation in Ivory Coast

Developments in the Gbagbo case

  • Mr Gbagbo transferred to the ICC, confirmation of charges hearing to start on 18 June 2012
  • Collective victim applications’ discussed

Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Developments in the Lubanga case

Timeline for appeal filing, release, sentencing and reparation proceedings clarified

[Background] On 15 November 2011, Trial Chamber I (TC I) heard the parties’ and participants’ observations on whether the decision on guilt or innocence should be delivered simultaneously in both French and English, and what the impact of not doing so would have for appeal filings, release, sentencing and reparation proceedings.[1]

On 15 December 2011, the Chamber found that it was both fair and permissible to issue the decision in English first, followed later by the French translation.[2] TC I also ruled that:

In the event of a conviction: the Chamber will proceed to the sentencing and reparation phases of the proceedings once the English version of the decision is notified to the parties. However, for the purpose of an appeal, notification to the parties will be considered to occur when the French translation is issued.In the event of an acquittal: the Chamber’s consideration of the release of the accused as well as timelines for appeal will start when the English version of the decision is issued.

New applications for participation not to be considered until sentencing or reparation stage

On 3 November 2011, the Victims Participation and Reparations Section (VPRS) asked for guidance on how to proceed with regards to 27 applications for participation which, due to lack of resources, it had not been able to process and file ahead of the closing arguments in the trial.[3] On 27 January 2012, TC I ruled that given that the evidence and the submissions in the trial had concluded and the Chamber was in deliberation, the Registry should only transmit the 27 new applications for participation to the Chamber if/when sentencing and reparation proceedings were to start.[4] It also ordered that all applications for reparations should be sent to the defence.

Developments in the Katanga and Ngudjolo case

Closing statements to start on 15 May 2012

On 4 January 2012, Trial Chamber II (TCII) set out the timeline for the submission of closing arguments in the case. The Prosecutor, as well as the legal representatives of victims, were given until 20 February 2012 to present their written submissions. The defendants have to submit their written statements no later than 26 March 2012. Oral final submissions are scheduled to start on 15 May 2012.[5]

TC II rejects victims’ legal representative’s request to present additional witnesses

[Background] On 21 November 2011, legal representatives of victims requested TC II to call as witnesses, representatives from the DRC and Uganda and to admit as evidence a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report.[6]

On 4 January 2012, TC II rejected both requests. The Chamber ruled that the probative value of the HRW report was insufficient and, that its admission would have, at this stage, a detrimental effect. TCII also found that the request by the representative of child soldier victims, to hear representatives of the DRC and Uganda, was imprecise and did not allow a determination of whether their intervention could contribute to the manifestation of the truth with respect to the charges relating to child soldiers in this case.[7]

Developments in the Mbarushimana case

PTC I declines to confirm the charges against Callixte Mbarushimana and orders his release

On 16 December 2011, Pre Trial Chamber I (PTC I), Judge Monageng dissenting, declined to confirm the charges against Callixte Mbarushimana and ordered his release. PTC 1 found that the evidence submitted did not establish, to the appropriate standard, that the acts committed were part of “an attack directed against the civilian population” pursuant to or in furtherance of an organisational policy to commit such attack. The Chamber also ruled that evidence lacked in relation to the role that Mr. Mbarushimana was alleged to have played in the commission of the crimes.[8]

On 19 December 2011, PTC 1 rejected a Prosecution’s request to stay the release of M. Mbarushimana until the decision on the confirmation of charges is final on appeal.[9] On the same day the Prosecution lodged an appeal directly against the Appeals Chamber. The appeal was rejected on 19 December 2011 on the ground that the decision on confirmation of charges did not constitute a decision granting or denying release, thus leave to appeal was required.[10] On 23 December 2011, Mr. Mbarushimana was released.

On 27 December 2011 the Prosecution applied to PTC 1 for leave to appeal the confirmation of charges decision.[11] The Prosecution argued inter alia, that:

PTC I had applied a higher standard of proof than the one required for the purpose of a confirmation of charges;PTC 1 had erroneously required that the contribution of the accused person to the commission or attempted commission of the alleged crime be “significant” while the Statute only mentions “any” contribution.[12]

Situation in the Central African Republic (CAR)

Developments in the Bemba case

Victims apply to present evidence and their views and concerns

[Background] On 21 November 2011 Trial Chamber III (TC III) ordered the victims’ legal representatives (LRVs) to file written applications on behalf of victims wishing to present their views and concerns or to present evidence to the Chamber by 6 December 2011.[13]

On 6 December 2011, Me Douzima and Zarambaud applied to have 17 of their clients heard by the Chamber in order to present evidence at trial and/or to present their views and concerns.[14] Among the issues victims wish to testify on, are the occurrence of crimes committed by the MLC outside of Bangui, and the impact of the crimes on the civilian population. On 21 December 2011, TC III instructed the LRVs to reduce the list of suggested victims to no more than eight individuals.[15]

The Chamber further requested that for each proposed victim, a comprehensive signed written statement be provided, detailing the facts about which the victim proposes to testify and/or present his or her views and concerns. In addition, for each proposed victim, the Legal Representatives are requested to state:

the estimated time needed for the victim's presentation;whether or not the victim’s identity could be disclosed to the parties in the event that he/she is allowed to testify and/or present views and concerns;how the presentation of the victim's testimony and/or views and concerns would affect the overall interests of the participating victims in this case;the relevance of the victim's testimony to the charges;how the victim's testimony would assist in the Chamber's determination of the truth;why the victim's testimony would not be cumulative of evidence presented to date.[16]

Hundreds of new victims to participate in the proceedings

On 28 November, 2 December 2011, 16 December 2011, and 13 January 2012, the Registry transmitted a total of 1,225 new victims’ applications to participate in the proceedings to the Chamber.[17]

On 15 December 2011, TC III granted participatory status to 404 victims and rejected the application of 14 victims.[18] In doing so the Chamber ruled that sanitary cards (cartes sanitaires), would not be allowed as proof of identity.[19] Finally, the Chamber ruled that in the absence of explanation, obvious contradictions as to the circumstances of the loss of property alleged by victim applicants would lead to the applications being rejected. This brings the number of participating victims in the case to 2,287.

Situation in Darfur

Developments in the Darfur Situation

Prosecutor presents new case in Darfur

On 2 December 2011, the Prosecutor requested PTC I to issue an arrest warrant against the current Sudanese Defence Minister Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur from August 2003 to March 2004.[20]

Developments in the Banda and Jerbo case

OPCV lacks resources to complete all applications in time

[Background] On 14 September 2011, the Registry appointed one team of common legal representatives to represent all victims authorised to participate in case.[21] The Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) was appointed as legal representative for unrepresented applicants, pending a decision on their application. TC IV also ordered that any new application for participation in the proceedings be submitted to the Victims Participation and Reparations Section (VPRS) by 13 January 2012.[22]

On 3 January 2012, OPCV informed the Chamber that, due to lack of resources and its current workload, it would not be able to complete 14 applications for which it was acting as representative, ahead of the February deadline. OPCV asked that an extension be granted until 29 February 2012.[23] A similar request was filed by the counsel of another new victim-applicant on 24 January 2012.[24]

Situation in Kenya

Developments in the Ruto, Kosgey and Sang case

Single Judge rejects victims’ views and concerns in relation to the conduct of investigations

[Background] On 9 November 2011, the legal representative of victims (LRV) requested authorisation to present the views and concerns expressed by victims in relation, inter alia, to an alleged failure of the prosecution to conduct meaningful investigations. She also reiterated her previous request, that charges be amended to reflect and include acts of destruction of property, looting, infliction of physical injuries and rape.[25]

On 9 December 2011, Single Judge Trendafilova rejected the request in relation to views and concern on the Prosecution’s conduct of investigation.[26] She found that the LRV had failed to indicate which of her clients had expressed these views and concerns and, on the merit, that it did do fall within the prerogatives of the Pre Trial Chamber to direct the prosecutor to investigate certain offences.

PTC II confirms charges against Mr Ruto and Mr Sang

[Background] The confirmation of charges hearing took place on 1 - 8 September 2011. In the Ruto case the three accused were charged with crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population and persecution. The Legal Representative of Victims (LRV) had requested that the Chamber amend the charges to specify that acts of destruction of property, looting and the infliction of other physical injuries were part of the charges.[27]

On 23 January 2012 Pre-Trial Chamber II (PTC II), Judge Kaul dissenting, confirmed the charges against Mr Ruto and Mr Sang. [28] The Judges declined to confirm the charges against Mr Kosgey, finding that evidence against him relied primarily on an anonymous and insufficiently corroborated witness. The Chamber also rejected the LRV’s request that the Prosecutor be ordered to amend the charges and include destruction of property, looting and the infliction of other physical injuries. The Chamber however clarified that contrary to the LRV’s submission, acts of looting and destruction of property were in fact already included in the charge of persecution, as underlying acts of the crime of forced displacement constituting persecution. The Chamber also ruled that cumulative charging was admissible as long as each crime required a materially distinct element not contained in the other.

OPCV’s request to make submissions in the appeal on jurisdiction is rejected

[Background]: On 30 January 2012, Mr Ruto and Mr Sang appealed the confirmation of charges decision, which had rejected their argument that the Court did not have jurisdiction in the case.[29] On 2 February 2012, the Appeals Chamber invited victims represented by the Legal Representative to file their observations in the appeal.[30] On 3 February 2012, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) requested to make observations on behalf of ‘victim-applicants’ in the case and generally on behalf of victims who had communicated with the Court referring to previous practice by the Appeals Chamber in that regard.[31]

On 20 February 2012, the Appeals Chamber rejected OPCV’s request.[32] It ruled that the Chamber’s approach to victims-applicants’ participation in jurisdictional appeals proceedings had been to only invite before it those victims who had made observations on the question before the Pre-Trial or Trial Chamber (including individuals whose victim status had not yet been determined). It stressed that OPCV had long been aware of the jurisdictional challenge but had not made submissions when the issue came up before the pre-trial chamber thus, there was no reason to make an exception in this case.

The Appeals Chamber also added that future filings from OPCV must specify on behalf of which victims or victim applicants, it is acting. Similar developments occurred in the Muthaura et al. case.[33]

Developments in the Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali case (developments which occurred in both the Ruto et al. case and Muthaura et al. case are covered under the previous section)

PTC II confirms charges against Mr Muthuara and Mr. Kenyatta

[Background] The confirmation of charges hearing took place on 21 September - 5 October 2011. In the Muthaura case the three accused were charged with crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, rape and other forms of sexual violence, other inhumane acts and persecution.[34]

On 23 January 2012 Pre-Trial Chamber II (PTC II), Judge Kaul dissenting, confirmed the charges against Mr Muthaura and Mr Kenyatta and committed them to trial.[35] The Judges declined to confirm the charges against Mr Ali and found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish that the Kenya Police, through which Mr. Ali was accused of having contributed to the crimes, had participated in the events surrounding the charges. PTC II found that acts of destruction of property presented by the Prosecution did not amount to inhuman acts as no evidence of the serious mental suffering caused by the destructions had been presented. PTC II also found that acts of forcible circumcision did not constitute other forms of sexual violence but rather inhumane acts. Finally PTC II rejected the request from the LRV to amend the charges in order to specify the inclusion of acts of destruction of property, looting and the infliction of other physical injuries.

Victims oppose disclosure of their identities to the Defence

On 26 August 2011, Single Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova directed the Legal Representative to notify the Chamber of the 233 victim-participants’ preferences regarding the disclosure of their identities to the Defence.[36] On 12 January 2012 the common legal representative of victims informed the Chamber that none of the remaining victims consulted wished to have their identity disclosed to the Defence. The legal representative also requested that status quo ante be maintained and non-disclosure be presumed for a remaining 18 victims he wasn’t able to reach.[37]

Situation in Libya

Developments in Libya Situation

Framework decision on victim participation in situation/investigation phase

On 24 January 2012, PTC I set out the framework for victims’ participation in proceedings relating to the Situation in Libya. [38] Endorsing the framework decision adopted in the context of the DRC Situation on 11 April 2011, PTC 1 stated that victims would only be allowed to participate at the situation stage in relation to specific judicial proceedings, provided their personal interests are affected by the issues arising in such proceedings.

As in the DRC Situation, only when a judicial proceeding arises, will the Chamber assess new victims’ applications for participation in the situation. The Victims Participation and Reparation Section (“VPRS”) is to transmit only those applications which are complete and relate to the subject matter of the said proceeding.[39]

Developments in the Gaddafi and Al-Senussi case

Libya submits confidential observation in relation to the arrest of Saif Gaddafi

[Background] On 27 June 2011 Pre-Trial Chamber I issued three arrest warrants against Muammar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi for their alleged criminal responsibility for the commission of murder and persecution as crimes against humanity from 15 February 2011 onwards throughout Libya.[40] The case was terminated against Muammar Gaddafi on 22 November 2011, following his death.[41]

Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi was arrested in November 2011 and PTC1 subsequently requested information from Libya in relation to the transfer of the accused to the ICC.[42] Libya replied confidentially on 23 January 2012.[43]

On 30 January 2012 and 31 January 2012, Mishana Hosseinioun (close friend of the accused) and Aisha Gaddafi (sister of the accused) respectively applied to submit amicus curiae observations in the case.[44] Both stressed the fact that Said Al Islam Gaddafi was being held in a secret location with no opportunity to speak to a lawyer or his family and wish to present information to the Chamber regarding the current situation of Saif-Al Islam Gaddafi and, Libya’s arrangements as regards his legal representation and trial. The two applications were rejected on 2 February 2012.[45]

Situation in Ivory Coast

Developments in the Gbagbo case

Mr Gbagbo is transferred to the ICC, confirmation of charges hearing to start on 18 June 2012

[Background] On 3 October 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber III (PTC III) authorised the commencement of an investigation in Côte d'Ivoire.[46]

On 30 November 2012 PTC III issued a warrant of arrest against Laurent Koudou Gbagbo on four counts of crimes against humanity (murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and inhumane acts) allegedly committed in the territory of Côte d’Ivoire between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.[47] Mr Gbagbo was transferred to the ICC’s custody on 30 November 2011 and appeared before PTC III on 5 December 2011.[48] The confirmation of charges hearing has been scheduled to start on 18 June 2012.[49]

Collective victim application process discussed

[Background]: On 17 January 2012, the Single Judge for Pre-Trial Chamber III (PTC III), the Victims Participation and Reparations Section ("VPRS") and other representatives of the Registry explored the possibility of a collective approach to victims' applications for participation in the Gbagbo case. On 20 January 2012 the Registry filed a report on the implications of a collective approach procedure.[50]

On 6 February 2012, the Single Judge ruled that the system of participation for the case should encourage a collective approach to victims’ applications and that while collective victims’ applications could not be imposed, individual victims may be encouraged to join with others so that a single application is made by a person on their behalf, with their consent.[51] She requested that the Registry submit, by 12 March 2012, a mapping report of victims' communities, their representatives and civil society groups.[52] She also ordered the Registry to propose a collective application form to the Chamber by 29 February 2012.

On 14 February 2012, OPCV requested to appear before PTC III, arguing that the Single Judge had incorrectly interpreted Rule 89(3) and that the legal texts of the Court intended only a system of individual applications.[53] On 15 February 2012 the Defence asked to submit observations on the proposed approach stating that it posed problems in relation to identifying groups of persons claiming to be victims under the exact same circumstances and potential legal difficulties relating to victim representation and status.[54]

On 20 February 2012, PTCIII rejected the OPVC’s request stressing the fact that the issues to be discussed were still general and not specific enough to justify OPVC’s appearance.[55]

 


 

[1] Transcript in the case of Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 15 November 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-T-358-ENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1301225.pdf

[2] Decision on the translation of the Article 74 Decision and related procedural issues, 15 December 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-2834, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1288656.pdf

[3] Request for instructions on victim's applications for participation and reparations received by the Registry, 2 November 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-2817, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1260260.pdf ; cf Legal update Oct-Nov 2011

[4] Order on the applications by victims to participate and for reparations, 27 January 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2838, http://212.159.242.180/iccdocs/doc/doc1322407.pdf ; TCI was silent on whether the applications could be considered by the Chamber in the context of an appeal of the decision on guilt or innocence.

[5] Ordonnance déterminant les modalités de présentation des conclusions écrites et orales (norme 54 du Règlement de la Cour), 4 January 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3218-Red, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1295313.pdf

[6] Proposition du représentant légal du groupe des victimes enfants soldats quant à la comparution de témoins supplémentaires, 21 November 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-3206, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1274184.pdf ; Demande d’admettre un rapport en preuve documentaire, 21 November 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-3205, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1273938.pdf

[7] Décision relative à trois requêtes tendant à la production d'éléments de preuve supplémentaires (ICC-01/04-01/07-3217-Conf), 4 January 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3217-Red, http://icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/50636D22-C0F5-498F-AEC4-34BB5F147E6F.htm

[8] Decision on the confirmation of charges, 16 December 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-465-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1286409.pdf

[9] Prosecution's request for stay of order to release Callixte MBARUSHIMANA, 16 December 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-466, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1291052.pdf ; Decision on the Prosecution's Request for stay of order to release Callixte Mbarushimana, 19 December 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-469, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1291179.pdf

[10] Prosecution’s Appeal against “Decision on the confirmation of charges” and Request for Suspensive Effect In the alternative, Prosecution’s Appeal against “Decision on the Prosecution's Request for stay of order to release Callixte Mbarushimana”, 19 December 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-470, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1291319.pdf ; Decision on the appeal of the Prosecutor of 19 December 2011, 20 December 2012, ICC-01/04-01/10-476, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1291760.pdf ; Reasons for "Decision on the appeal of the Prosecutor , 24 January 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-483, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1315605.pdf

[11] Prosecution’s Application for Leave to Appeal the “Decision on the confirmation of charges”, 27 December 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-480, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1293405.pdf

[12]The Chamber has ruled that the Defence 3 days period to reply to the OTP’s request would only start running when the Defence is provided with the French translation of the confirmation of charges decision, Decision on the "Requête de la Défense en interprétation ou en demande de délai prolongé de réponse (ICC-01/04-01/10-465-RED)", 17 December 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-481, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1293840.pdf

[13] Order regarding applications by victims to present their views and concerns or to present evidence, 21 November 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1935, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1274199.pdf

[14] Application by the Legal Representative of Victims for leave to call victims to appear as witnesses and present their views and concerns, 6 December 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1990-tENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1285920.pdf ; ICC-01/05-01/08-1989-Conf, Requête afin d’autorisation de présentation d’éléments de preuves et subsidiairement de présentation de vues et préoccupations par les victimes, 6 December 2011 ; ICC-01/05-01/08-1989-Conf-Corr, Rectificatif à la justification relative à “Requête afin d’autorisation de présentation d’éléments de preuves […], 12 December 2011.

[15] Second order regarding the applications of the legal representatives of victims to present evidence and the views and concerns of victims, 21 December 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-2027, http://icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/E0448C37-F73F-4648-9F14-49260C828AA8.htm

[16] The Chamber indicated that the relevant victims should be those who are: i) the best placed to assist the Chamber in the determination of the truth, (ii) able to present evidence and /or views and concerns that affect the personal interests of the greatest number of participating victims, (iii) best placed to present testimony that will not be cumulative of that which has already been presented in this case; and (iv) willing for their identity to be disclosed to the parties in the event that their request is granted.

[17] Seventeenth transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 28 November 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1957, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1278103.pdf ; Eighteenth transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 2 December 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1978, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1281134.pdf ; Nineteenth transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 16 December 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-2017, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1286392.pdf ; Twentieth transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 13 January 2012, ICC-01/05-01/08-2042, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1300156.pdf

[18] Decision on 418 applications by victims to participate in the proceedings, 15 December 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-2011, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1288651.pdf

[19] Decision on 270 applications by victims to participate in the proceedings, 25 October 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1862, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1251784.pdf

[20] ICC Prosecutor Presents New Case in Darfur, 2 December 2011, Press Release ICC-OTP-20111202-PR750 , http://icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/D6519D05-76EC-4EFC-AE37-E02FBD346D7A.htm

[21] Notification of appointment of common legal representatives, 14 September 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-215, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1231700.pdf

[22] Decision on the Registry report on six applications to participate in the proceedings, 17 December 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-231, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1252352.pdf

[23] Request for extension of time to submit complete applications, 3 January 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-273-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1294902.pdf

[24] Request for extension of time to submit supplemental information to victim’s application, 24 January 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-283, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1315754.pdf

[25] Request by the Victims’ Representative for authorisation to make a further written submission on the views and concerns of the victims, 9 November 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-367, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1264964.pdf

[26] Decision on the "Request by the Victims' Representative for authorisation to make a further written submission on the views and concerns of the victims", 9 December 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-371, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1285482.pdf

[27] Final written observations of the Victims' Representative in relation to the confirmation of charges hearing, 30 September 2011,ICC-01/09-01/11-344, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1239796.pdf

[28] Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, 23 January 2012 ICC-01/09-01/11-373, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1314535.pdf ; In both cases, Judge Kaul maintained that the ICC lacked competence because the nature of the crimes did not amount to crimes against humanity as codified by the Rome Statute.

[29] Articles 19(6) and 82(1)(a) Appeal by the Defence for Mr. Ruto on Jurisdiction, 30 January 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-374, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1323682.pdf

[30] Directions on the submission of observations pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Rome Statute and rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 2 February 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-383, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1326221.pdf

[31] Observations on the “Directions on the submission of observations pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Rome Statute and rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence”, 3 February 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-384, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1326910.pdf

[32]Decision on the "Observations on the 'Directions on the submission of observations pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Rome Statute and rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence'", 20 February 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-390, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1336432.pdf ; Judge Sang-Hyun Song while agreeing with the overall findings of the decision, disagreed with its reasoning.

[33] Decision on the "Observations on the 'Directions on the submission of observations pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Rome Statute and rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence"', 20 February 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-400, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1336433.pdf

[34] On 1 December and 2 December 2011 all defendants filed their written observations on the confirmation of charges hearing requesting the Chamber to decline to confirm any of the charges: Public Redacted version of Final Written Observations of the Defence Team of Ambassador Francis K. Muthaura on the Confirmation of Charges Hearing, 2 December 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-374-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1252614.pdf ; Public Redacted Version of General Mohammed Hussein Ali’s Final Submissions on the Confirmation of Charges Hearing, 1 December 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-373-RED, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1280619.pdf ; Defence Submissions on behalf of Uhuru Kenyatta Following the Confirmation of Charges Hearing, 17 November 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-372, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1270373.pdf

[35] Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, 23 January 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-382-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1314543.pdf

[36] Decision on Victims' Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, 26 August 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-267, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1211737.pdf ; cf. Legal Update November 2011

[37] Notification to the Chamber, 12 January 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-381, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1298615.pdf

[38] Decision on Victim's Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in Libya, 24 January 2012, ICC-01/11-18, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1315759.pdf ; Legal update March-May 2011

[39] Decision on victims’ participation in proceedings relating to the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 11 April 2011, ICC-01/04-593, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1053881.pdf ; Legal update March-May 2011

[40] Warrant of Arrest for Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, 27 June 2011, ICC-01/11-13 -, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1099321.pdf , Warrant of Arrest for Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 27 June 2011, ICC-01/11-14 -, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1099329.pdf , Warrant of Arrest for Abdullah Al-Senussi, 27 June 2011, ICC-01/11-15 - , http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1099332.pdf

[41] Decision to Terminate the Case Against Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, 22 November 2011, ICC-01/11-01/11-28, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1274559.pdf

[42] Public Redacted Version of Decision Requesting Libya to file Observations Regarding the Arrest of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 6 December 2011, ICC-01/11-01/11-39-Red, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1283037.pdf

[43]Report of the Registrar on Libya's observations regarding the arrest of Saif AI-Islam Gaddafi, 23 January 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-44 , http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1314688.pdf

[44] Application on behalf of Mishana Hosseinioun for Leave to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations to the Chamber, 30 January 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-46, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1323833.pdf ; Application on behalf of Aisha Gaddafi for leave to submit amicus curiae observations concerning her brother - Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, 31 January 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-47, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1324791.pdf

[45] Decision on the Applications of Mishana Hosseinioun and Aisha Gaddafi to submit Amicus Curiae observations to the Chamber, 2 February 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-49, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1302006.pdf

[46] Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, 3 October 2011, ICC-02/11-14-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1268605.pdf

[47] Public redacted version of “Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58 for a warrant of arrest against Laurent Koudou Gbagbo”, 20 December 2011, ICC-02/11-01/11-9-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1291604.pdf

[48] Practical information for media: The initial appearance hearing in the case against Laurent Koudou Gbagbo is scheduled for Monday 5 December 2011, ICC-ASP-20111128-MA114 , http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/practical%20information%20for%20media_%20the%20initial%20appearance%20hearing%20in%20the%20case%20against%20laurent%20koudou%20g

[49]Transcript of hearing, 5 December 2011, ICC-02/ll-Ol/ll-T-l-ENG, page 8, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1282306.pdf

[50] Organization of the Participation of Victims, 6 February, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-29-Conf-Exp; ICC-02/ll-01/ll-29-Red (public redacted version), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1327560.pdf

[51] Decision on issues related to the victims' application process, February 6 2012 ICC-02/11-01/11-33, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1327517.pdf

[52] In order to identify main communities or groups of victims, identify potential persons that could act on behalf of multiple individual victims, with their consent, in accordance with Rule 89(3) of the Rules and encourage potential individual applicants to join with others and to that effect consent to a single application to be made on their behalf in accordance with Rule 89(3) of the Rules

[53] Request to appear before the Chamber pursuant to Regulation 81(4)(b) of the Regulations of the Court on the specific issue of victims’ application process, 14 February 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-40 , http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1331914.pdf

[54]Requête de la Défense suite à la « Decision on issues related to the victims’ application process » 15 January 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-33, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1333197.pdf ;

[55] Decision on the "Observations on the 'Directions on the submission of observations pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Rome Statute and rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence'", 20 February 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-390, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1336432.pdf